Can we talk about Holmlid?

@Eric Walker

Please understand what you are asking for...

The two major experiments at CERN detect muons CMS and ATLAS use drift tubes. These detectors are engineered to be massive to allow muons to interact with matter.

see

http://cms.web.cern.ch/news/muon-detectors

In order for these huge detectors to be modified to detect muons from LENR, the central cryogenic proton beam pipe must me removed from the detector and replaced with a LENR reactor. I don't beleive that any one person or group of people can convince the people who fronted the $10 billion to build CERN would let someone modify it to advance the study of LENR. I'm just saying...

Quote from redacted

thx for the detailed discussion of Homlid's experiment on this thread. Clearly the experiment needs to be reproduced by another party, and stands as a single data point at the moment.

If I understand the papers, compared to other LENR experiments, the energetic particles emitted ( whatever they are ) coincide with the laser impinging upon the 'puddle' of "UDD" which collects on plate having fallen off the catalyst material. The creation of this superfluid material in a pure form and physically and temporally from it's creation material is a big claim.

My reading is that energetic particles are not measured from the catalyst itself, or during the creation of the "UDD" material or from the "UDD" material without any stimulation. The question is really, does this hyper-dense superfluid derivative hydrogen exist? If the high energy emissions are only when stimulated, ( not during creation ) then there is a puddle of stable non-emissive mystery material just sitting there. Seems like there would be many simple tests to characterize it.

Display More

Please see thread

DTRA: Investigation of Nano Nuclear Reactions in Condensed Matter, Mosier Boss, L. Forsley, PK. McDaniel

The experiment on page 78 characterizes the Ultra Dense Hydrogen(UDH) (AKA radberg matter of metalized hydrogen) that is generated in the cracks and voids of the highly loaded Pd/D system. This UDH is well characterized in high density physics.

Also see thread starting at

Water surprises physisists

regarding metalized water produced in beryllium crystals for the quantum mechanical characterization of metalized hydrides.

Quote from Keieueue

Oh wow those walls of text really make me think

I'm sure a random nobody posting on an internet forum has better science in him than a scientist doing experiments to refine existing theories and usher new ones!

Hi Keieueue — it's liberating being a random nobody posting on the Internet, as I do not have a reputation that can be damaged by looking into controversial corners of science. But let's follow the implication of your implicit criticism — who would you have us go along with, Holmlid, or his critics? What's your rationale?

Also, when did 1371 words, quotes included, become a wall of text? Perhaps you've found a new criticism you're fond of and are practicing using it?

Quote from axil

The two major experiments at CERN detect muons CMS and ATLAS use drift tubes. These detectors are engineered to be massive to allow muons to interact with matter.

Surely he need not trek over to CERN to get muons! There's a meson production cross section in pp collisions starting around 200+ MeV, if I recall. Surely there are accelerators around Europe that can produce them? And they can be moderated? Or are CMS and ATLAS required after all? Since the 1950s, are CERN the only ones who have been able to investigate muons?

Quote from Eric Walker

Surely he need not trek over to CERN to get muons! There's a meson production cross section in pp collisions around 200+ MeV, if I recall. Surely there are accelerators around Europe that can produce them? And they can be attenuated and moderated? Or are CMS and ATLAS required after all?

You tell me... do the systems engineering leg work and the social networking to get the particle physicists to cooperate. Holmlid is working with CERN people.

Quote from axil

You tell me... do the systems engineering leg work and the social networking to get the particle physicists to cooperate. Holmlid is working with CERN people.

I'm not the one with a claim of muons. But it's good that he's working with CERN people. I'll be very interested to hear what they say.

Quote from redacted

thx for the detailed discussion of Homlid's experiment on this thread. Clearly the experiment needs to be reproduced by another party, and stands as a single data point at the moment.

If I understand the papers, compared to other LENR experiments, the energetic particles emitted ( whatever they are ) coincide with the laser impinging upon the 'puddle' of "UDD" which collects on plate having fallen off the catalyst material. The creation of this superfluid material in a pure form and physically and temporally from it's creation material is a big claim.

My reading is that energetic particles are not measured from the catalyst itself, or during the creation of the "UDD" material or from the "UDD" material without any stimulation. The question is really, does this hyper-dense superfluid derivative hydrogen exist? If the high energy emissions are only when stimulated, ( not during creation ) then there is a puddle of stable non-emissive mystery material just sitting there. Seems like there would be many simple tests to characterize it.

Also see Dr. Sveinn answer to ecco...

Ask questions to Dr. Sveinn Ólafsson, Science Institute - University of Iceland

Quote from redacted

@axil - yeah that's my basic question, given the big difference between creating trace amounts of UDD in a tiny crack in a highly dynamic environment vs creating it in bulk in a stable apparatus why doesn't Homlid get more attention than some of the other characters out there. BTW I like that entanglement post, you are a free thinker.

Most people are interesting in going into the LENR business so they are interested in the tech that can be applied to making money. Holmlid is interested in science and there are few scientists interested in LENR for science sake.

Quote from Eric Walker

You will be lucky to find someone on this forum who has read those papers more carefully than you have. We have in our discussion already sorted out several good reasons to fully distrust the conclusions in those papers, e.g., the missing 0-53 MeV betas, the possibility of alternative interpretations and the lack of an effective investigation into really establishing that it was muons that have been detected and not something else. But if you do not find this discussion is useful to you, you are free to disengage.

As I previously mentioned it is clear that the conclusions are based on inference. Given that even Holmlid acknowledges that the beta distribution he sees does not agree with that of muon decay and that Olafsson strongly urged replication with other methods I would add that it is also plausible that they may not be entirely sure that "muons" is the correct explanation.

What I am asking is then: what are H&O actually measuring? Your posts appear to be very strongly focused on conclusions instead of the measurements. You do not agree with them, understood.

I would like to read a possibly objective analysis of what H&O did with the measurements, not being repeatedly forced to intervene to point out inconsistencies, inaccuracies or read more of the same questions that could have been avoided by reading more carefully the experimental section of the pointed out papers (specifically, those where a scintillator-photomultiplier tube is used).

You are taking advantage of my patience and willingness to take the time to reply to your long posts.

Quote

As previously suggested, then, the (hopefully) obvious thing to do here is to collaborate with someone or with a team that has access to such a facility.

Email Holmlid or even Olafsson asking them this. I cannot do anything about it.

Quote

I would have expected a background signal, even if there was no scintillator, given the muon decay betas. Or are we to suppose that the muons are not decaying at all?

Apparently they are not decaying here, or at least no such signal seems to be detected (as already acknowledged).

Quote

[...] Perhaps let’s simplify the problem: can Homlid’s results be explained with energetic electrons (2, 5, 10, 20 or even 50 MeV, say) arising outside of the apparatus, cause unknown? Or more interestingly: what minimum energy would the electrons need to have to explain Homlid’s observations if they were arising outside of the apparatus, assuming this can be made to fit the observations? Or can Holmlid’s observations be explained by anything else that doesn’t stray too far into realms that are very far away from everyday life? Just as a thought experiment.

For what it is worth they report checking for external sources in their laboratory and in the building with no success in finding anything that could explain their observations. Even so, how would this external beta radiation be so much affected by the material put in front of the PMT would remain a mistery.

Assuming that this external radiation only penetrated the walls of the high vacuum steel enclosure of the detector (3mm?) I think there would have to be a 4-4.5 MeV beta source lying around intermittently for its electrons to directly interact with the PMT.

Quote

What is something that can simplify the experiment enough to know, unambiguously, whether the signal arises from within the PMT or without?

I dunno. Personally I would run the reactor long enough at a higher rate away from the detectors in front of converter materials that supposedly engage in beta decay so that they effectively become radioactive. Then measure the radioactivity of such converters in a separate location with old and new methods.

Quote

Also, would you not expect a massive electron emission from the 0-53 MeV muons arising from muons that happen to decay outside of the apparatus?

An electron distribution consistent with muon decay was not observed (acknowledged).

Quote

I’m not 100 percent against a neutral particle of some kind. Bill Collis, whose opinion in these matters means a lot to me, has taken this approach. It’s not my own guess. I think an unknown neutral particle is in any event more likely than kaons and pions being liberated in significant numbers through a laser emitting low-energy photons. But assume for the moment that this is what is happening: think of the potential for a bomb that could be made, using only a low-power laser and Holmlid’s material?

The potential for a bomb or other harmful effects should not affect this discussion.

Quote

[...]Anyone looking at Holmlid’s work should ask some basic questions, such as: How did he get to the conclusion about ultra-dense deuterium? What did the actual experimental observations look like that got him there? How did he get to Rydberg matter? Once one closely examines the reasoning that has lead him to those conclusions, one will go down a rabbit hole and come to distrust his very process of reasoning.

So far I have carefully avoided discussing Rydberg Matter and ultra-dense deuterium and bringing them out in support of the measurements with the PS-PMT combo. That is not the point of the current discussion which was specifically focused on the PS-PMT measurements.

Quote from Eric Walker

Also, would you not expect a massive electron emission from the 0-53 MeV muons arising from muons that happen to decay outside of the apparatus?

You make so much claims. I have not enough interest to answer all. but think muon livetime, outside aparatus muons are almost invisible, extreme penetral and fly near kilometer away until decay.
From kilometer distance scintilator/pmt tube dosn't record your missing betas..

And bomb claim it is real true and also one thing why I can't public tell what I did. This radiation coock brains without notification for target. People that feels it are rare.
In my reactor effect zone have been visit about ten people and only one report that he feels something strange, (he was my father).

Quote from axil

I don't beleive that any one person or group of people can convince the people who fronted the $10 billion to build CERN would let someone modify it to advance the study of LENR. I'm just saying...

Hmm, muons are quite penetral, I think that if bring lenr reactor where man stands it maybe can noticed in detector if it send energetic enough muons?

Maybe they allow visitors, one black briefcase is enough..

Quote

As I previously mentioned it is clear that the conclusions are based on inference. Given that even Holmlid acknowledges that the beta distribution he sees does not agree with that of muon decay and that Olafsson strongly urged replication with other methods I would add that it is also plausible that they may not be entirely sure that "muons" is the correct explanation.

Why did Holmlid start out Ref. 2 not only with muons, but with mesons? I do not see much in the way of equivocation or qualification in those papers. You appear to be downplaying Holmlid's confidence.

Quote

I would like to read a possibly objective analysis of what H&O did with the measurements, not being repeatedly forced to intervene to point out inconsistencies, inaccuracies or read more of the same questions that could have been avoided by reading more carefully the experimental section of the pointed out papers (specifically, those where a scintillator-photomultiplier tube is used).

I would like to have someone take a critical look at these papers, rather than simply rephrase statements from them. You have been helpful in pointing out the errors I have made in reading through the papers. And I have been helpful in pointing some assumptions that you're making, possibly incorrectly, as well as identifying glaring holes in the conclusions that you persistently overlook. Together we have come a little closer to an accurate assessment of the quality of those papers, whether you agree or not.

Quote

You are taking advantage of my patience and willingness to take the time to reply to your long posts.

You’re free to disengage at any point. You do so entirely of your own accord. We’ll either come to agreement on important points, or you can disengage, or I’ll get tired. One of those things will happen. You are in control of your participation.

Quote

As previously suggested, then, the (hopefully) obvious thing to do here is to collaborate with someone or with a team that has access to such a facility.

We’re agreed on this point, then.

Quote

Apparently they are not decaying here, or at least no such signal seems to be detected (as already acknowledged).

Sounds like a very important piece of evidence contraindicating the presence of muons, wouldn’t you agree?

Quote

For what it is worth they report checking for external sources in their laboratory and in the building with no success in finding anything that could explain their observations. Even so, how would this external beta radiation be so much affected by the material put in front of the PMT would remain a mistery.

Bremsstrahlung is one possibility, as has been pointed out.

Quote

Assuming that this external radiation only penetrated the walls of the high vacuum steel enclosure of the detector (3mm?) I think there would have to be a 4-4.5 MeV beta source lying around intermittently for its electrons to directly interact with the PMT.

There’s no clear evidence as far as I can tell of direct interactions with the PMT at this point, in the sense that those electrons need not penetrate the converters to produce bremsstrahlung.

Quote

Eric: What is something that can simplify the experiment enough to know, unambiguously, whether the signal arises from within the PMT or without?

I dunno. Personally I would run the reactor long enough at a higher rate away from the detectors in front of converter materials that supposedly engage in beta decay so that they effectively become radioactive. Then measure the radioactivity of such converters in a separate location with old and new methods.

This is an interesting approach for follow-up.

Quote

The potential for a bomb or other harmful effects should not affect this discussion.

Yes, it has no effect on the conclusions. But it’s an interesting implication, wouldn’t you agree? Shall I refrain from making any tangential statements, drawing out interesting possible implications?

Quote

So far I have carefully avoided discussing Rydberg Matter and ultra-dense deuterium and bringing them out in support of the measurements with the PS-PMT combo. That is not the point of the current discussion which was specifically focused on the PS-PMT measurements.

I was making a general point about Holmlid’s reasoning processes, which applies as much to the PS-PMT measurements as they do to ultra-dense deuterium and Rydberg matter. Perhaps you do not find it insightful, relevant or helpful.

Quote from Eric Walker

There's a meson production cross section in pp collisions starting around 200+ MeV, if I recall.

Thank you! do you have any more accurate data?
How much movement energy produced muons got? (~120Mev??)

So reactor have "only" 200x too much energy level..

Quote from Keieueue

Nice appeal to authority too, but points stands: you're a 10c a post social engineer filibustering and drowning discussion in nitpick and walls of texts and quotes

Either you do experiments, or you don't, and if you don't, and really don't believe in the science that people who do experiments to further it believe in, there's really as much coherence for your being here as a geologist spending 6 hours a day on a flat earth forum

You're an adorable munchkin, Keieueue. I don't see the point of discussing logical fallacies with you until you get past the whole ad hom thing. You did not answer my question, which is a reasonable one: how do we know who to go along with, Holmlid or his critics, and on what basis does one decide?

When are you going to start doing the experiments that are needed for you to be able to make valid points this forum?

Quote from Keieueue

I don't have to make valid points, I simply have to point out people like you are pests, doing their pest job. Without your pestering, people doing actual science will do it much faster.
Also, reality is a consensus, isn't it? :^)

- You don't perform LENR experiments
- You don't agree with the bad, pathological woowoo hokum that's been identified for more than a century as "LENR", yet you choose to spend hours on end here undermining the works of people who actually suspend their groupthink-induced disbelief, and get to empirical work
- You pretend you're interested in the subject and are waiting for proofs, but it's pretty clear you don't, since you don't do experiments, and refute the postulates of the whole field

So really you are as embarrassing as a geologist spending half his days on a flat earth forum. Why do you do that to yourself?

Oh I forgot: 10c a post

Display More

I take it you're not going to answer my question about how to assess Holmlid's work, then, and instead simply try to discredit me and make me look bad?